View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Hippolyte Affognon
Project coordinator, icipe
May 31, 2013 Nairobi, Kenya
Postharvest losses in Africa - Analytical review and
synthesis
Key messages: most important findings of the
present review project
Evidence of postharvest losses (PHLs) is
scanty and spotty
The magnitude of losses is often exaggerated
because of poor loss assessment methodology
Loss is often economic loss rather than
physical product loss
PHL research should be conducted in a way to generate
innovations that are effective in reducing losses and
improving income
1. What is the development challenge, the idea the project is
about?
2. Innovation: what is new?
3. What are the results of the project?
4. What are the key implications?
Plan of the presentation
What is the development challenge, the idea?
Food security and food safety are major
problems in SSA
How to feed 9.1 billion people with safe
food by 2050?
Annual value of PHLs for grain alone in
SSA was estimated exceeding USD4 Billion
Postharvest losses are constraints to food
security in SSA
What is the development challenge, the idea?
Global food
crisis (2006)
Increasing
food prices
Rising food
prices
contribute to
food
insecurity
Price volatility continued in Africa after the crisis
High prices- Weak and inefficient market
Food Riots in
many
countries of
SSA
WFP, 2011
What is the development challenge, the idea?
Renewed interest to mitigate PH losses as part of effort to
overcome food insecurity and poverty in food deficit countries
Aim
Provide evidences on PHLs and PH innovations in SSA through a
comprehensive and systematic review
Research questions
What are the hotspots of PHLs and the magnitude of losses along
commodity value chains?
What are the appropriate strategies used for the mitigation of
losses?
Innovation: what is new? Project sites located in
different parts of SSA
Benin and Ghana (West
Africa)
Kenya and Tanzania (East
Africa)
Malawi and Mozambique
(Southern Africa)
More PH works have been
conducted in West Africa
compared to East Africa
and Southern Africa
Possibility of technologies transferred
from West to East and Southern Africa
Innovation: what is new?
Two national consultants: one
postharvest specialist and one
agricultural economist
Inception workshop to develop and validate the
review methodology in collaboration with national
consultants and international experts
Multi-disciplinary approach with
national experts
Results validation workshop involving
other experts in postharvest
Innovation: what is new? INPUT
Multi-disciplinary
literature on PHL
PROCESSSystematic screening and Guided synthesis
OUTPUT
Published
literature:scientific
journals
Grey
literature:technical reports,
theses, working
papers, project
reports,
evaluation
reports,
conference
presentations &
abstracts
First stage
screening:
relevance
Second stage
screening:
methodologySynthesis
Analytical
review
report
Evidence & magnitudes
of PHL
PHL assessment
methods
Cost-benefit
analysis of PH
innovations
Action plan for PHL
research & innovation
Relevant
literatureAppropriate
literature
Bibliography of
relevant PHL
& PH innovation
literature
Bibliography of
methodologically
appropriate
literature
• Systematic
• Comprehensive
• Screening
almost all the
available
literature
• Focus not only
on technical but
also on socio
economic
components
Innovation: what is new?
ICIPE/IDRC FAO/World
Bank
AGRA APHLIS
Commodity Many including
fruits and
vegetable and
animal products
Only grains Many except
fruits and
vegetable and
animal products
Only cereals
Method Comprehensive
and systematic
screening of all
available
literature
Value chain
Experts survey
(Subjective)
Review of
project reports
Only storage
Estimation
Value chain
Simulation
Value chain
Data Actual from
screened
literature
FAOSTAT,
APHLIS & other
sources
FAOSTAT & other
not screened
literature
Estimation
based on
adjusted data
Quick comparison with other reviews
What are the results? COUNTRY NUMBER OF ARTICLES REVIEWED PER COMMODITY CATEGORY
CEREALS GRAIN LEGUMES
FRUITS VEGETABLES ROOTS & TUBERS
ANIMAL PRODUCTS
OIL CROPS TOTAL
TANZANIA 16 5 1 1 16 3 0 42
KENYA 14 6 6 1 4 5 0 36
MALAWI 9 3 0 0 2 1 1 16
MOZAMBIQUE 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7
GHANA 15 10 4 7 14 3 2 55
BENIN 44 8 2 3 7 0 0 71
What are the results? COUNTRY LOSSES (%)
MAIZE RICE BEANS MANGO FISH COWPEAS TOMATO YAM MILK
TANZANIA 3.8 -21.5
- 14.7 -17.5
28.3 - 43.8
7- 30.2 - 14 - -
KENYA 21-24 - 7.7 25.1 - 44.4
- - 1-10 - -
MALAWI 7.6 -28
8 - 26.9
4.2 -9.1
- 18-22 - - -
MOZAMBIQUE 11-47 - - - 39-58 - - - 12.6
GHANA 10 - 18
5.5-9
- 36-60.6
11.2-31.9
1.1 - 10 20.5-30.4
22-39 -
BENIN 10-45 2.8 - 49.5-81.7
23.3-30.8
29.6-60.8
25-40 -
What are the results? Most research work use methodologies that don’t take into account
store withdrawals during storage
Some methodologies give a PHL value for a limited period in the storage
season and not the overall loss throughout the year
Some measurements of losses are not along the whole postharvest
value chain system
There are no generally replicable methods for evaluating postharvest
losses of fresh produce (most methods are subjective)
Intrinsic limitations of methodologies under practical conditions:
different methodologies > same aspect = different result
Discrepancies in sample heterogeneity: some results represent findings
in single locality, others are averages of a number of localities/districts
What are the results?
PHLs evidence exists but scanty and spotty
Often PHLs are generally exaggerated
Most research works were concentrated on
On-farm storage
Assessment of losses and postharvest
innovations from the perspective of entire
value chains is limited
Loss assessments target physical losses,
assessing weight loss of commodity that
becomes unfit for human consumption
What are the results?
Loss is often economic loss rather than physical
product loss
Few studies on the adoption of mitigation
strategies were conducted
Information on cost of loss reduction and
economic benefit of innovations are lacking
Improved technologies are often not
economically feasible at the smallholder scale
levels and there are local methods that are easy
to use and may be as effective and less costly
What are the results?
IDRC made a good decision by funding this
project
Gathering evidence on current PHLs, will help
not only in planning for mitigation interventions
but will also help to measure progress against
any PHLs reduction target
Results of the project are based on well
screened literature with a set of criteria
developed by national and international experts
in PH
What are the results? A wide dissemination of the outputs (research
reports, policy brief, journal articles and
database) of the project in the participating
countries will enhance the success of the project
Information about the project have been shared
with World Resource Institutes (WRI) and
BMZ/GIZ
This project added to the existing knowledge that
PHLs are often exaggerated and that information
are lacking for the whole value chain
It also helped identifying gap and outlook for
postharvest research and innovations
What are the implications?
The present review lays the foundation for many
research organizations as well as development
agencies in search of information on PHLs for
proposal development
The gaps identified in terms of research and
innovation can be used by IDRC for call for
proposals
What are the implications?
Results of the present review are being
compiled for the development of journal articles
by each country:
Six (06) articles have been submitted to icipe by
collaborators for review
For each country there is opportunity to conduct
more rigourous field studies for PHLs
assessment using a systematic methodology
What are the implications? Results of the present review point at
opportunities for relevant improvements to PH
systems
This can be tested through:
1- Improving income generation through
alternative use of products unfit for human
consumption and postharvest by-products
2- Enhancing nutrition, food hygiene, and
public health through postharvest processing
and value addition
3- Promoting export of commodities through
management of aflatoxin contamination
Role that ICIPE may play in leading
research on postharvest: we see icipe as a
coordinating institution in order to avoid
duplication of research activities
Also, icipe has the expertise to conduct its
own research activities and at the same
time playing the role of research
coordination
What are the implications?
Holistic with value chain perspective
Participatory for technology development
Should have a component of cost-benefit analysis
Market oriented
Should have a component of knowledge
management and dissemination
Should have component of adoption study
Should have a component of impact assessment
What are the implications? How a PHL project should look like?
Thank you for your attention
Recommended